Is Relativity of Simultaneity Proven already??
Brutus
Are there actual experiments that have proven this aspect of
Special Relativity or is it just a hypothesis without any
experimental support? I know time can dilate, length can
contract but it won't mean anything if the Relativity of
Simultaneity is not yet actually seen. In case they are
seen. Pls. mention all subatomic, atomic, cosmic examples
where these have occured.
Thanks!
Brutus
Jeckyl
news:1185449554.3...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
AFAIK, because the things we can get up to velocities where we can observe
time dilation are generally point particles, we cannot observe simultaneity
and length contraction effects.
Brutus
> "Brutus" <brutusrelativ...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Thanks. So it means there is possibility it may not
hold in the actual world. So the following
http://www.saburchill.com/physics/chapters/0087.html
may just be a relativity assumption that can still be
disproven in the future.
can you recommend an experiment where relativity of
simultaneity can be proven or disproven above atomic
scale, but is such experiment impossible until the
future when they can create relativistic propulsion
system? (note that since relativistic propulsion
system may just be a crackpot dream, then there
will never be any experiment that can prove relativity
of simultaneity hence we can say it is just like ether
where nothing can be observed hence we can put it away).
Brutus
Jeckyl
> On Jul 26, 7:50 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "Brutus" <brutusrelativ...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1185449554.3...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Hi,
>>
>> > Are there actual experiments that have proven this aspect of
>> > Special Relativity or is it just a hypothesis without any
>> > experimental support? I know time can dilate, length can
>> > contract but it won't mean anything if the Relativity of
>> > Simultaneity is not yet actually seen. In case they are
>> > seen. Pls. mention all subatomic, atomic, cosmic examples
>> > where these have occured.
>>
>> > Thanks!
>>
>> AFAIK, because the things we can get up to velocities where we can
>> observe
>> time dilation are generally point particles, we cannot observe
>> simultaneity
>> and length contraction effects.
>
> Thanks. So it means there is possibility it may not
> hold in the actual world. So the following
Very unlikely .. we've simply not seen it yet
> http://www.saburchill.com/physics/chapters/0087.html
> may just be a relativity assumption that can still be
> disproven in the future.
>
> can you recommend an experiment where relativity of
> simultaneity can be proven or disproven above atomic
> scale, but is such experiment impossible until the
> future when they can create relativistic propulsion
> system? (note that since relativistic propulsion
> system may just be a crackpot dream, then there
> will never be any experiment that can prove relativity
> of simultaneity hence we can say it is just like ether
> where nothing can be observed hence we can put it away).
Ether (as in the LET ether) is different .. it is not possible to even
theoretically imagine an experiment that can measure it, as it neatly makes
sure all measurement of lengths and times end up hiding the existence of an
ether frame.
But as far as length contraction and simultaneity, there are some thought
experiments (like the pole and barn) that could (in theory) be implemented
and give you a result.
Its more a matter of practicality than some underlying impossibility.
Shubee
Brutus, the relativity of simultaneity is essentially a definition.
The nature of relative simultaneity comes from how we decide to
synchronize clocks. Synchronization is usually defined according to
Einstein's synchronization procedure. For a perfect illustration of
this, I like to synchronize clocks according to one simple symmetry
principle and the speed of sound in Galilean spacetime. If we follow
that definition, simultaneity becomes relative. The equations that
would then determine the meaning of relative simultaneity would be
x' = x-vt
t' = (Y(v)^2)(t - vx/c^2)
where c is the speed of sound (not the speed of light) and
Y(v) = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
That would be one way to get relative simultaneity in Galilean
spacetime. If you want instantaneousness in Minkowski spacetime
without relative simultaneity, then you have to synchronize clocks
according to the equations
x' = Y(v)(x-vt)
t' = t/Y(v)
where Y(v) = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and c is the speed of light.
You asked about experimental support. There is no question that if we
synchronize clocks according to the finite speed of something, then
it's very easy to achieve a relative definition of simultaneity. There
is currently nothing known that moves instantaneously or even faster
than the speed of light so physicists prefer a relative definition.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
Brutus, the relativity of simultaneity is essentially a definition.
Brutus
>
> - Show quoted text -
When we give examples of relativity of simultaneity, we always use
relativistic trains, etc. But realistically, what's the fastest speed
that a propulsion can ever accomplish in the future, maybe just
1/10,000 the speed of light? I don't think there will ever be a ship
that can travel at 1/3 the speed of light and since relativity of
simultaneity can only be dramatic for speeds close to light.
Then we can say that it is insignificant for real world applications
And who knows. If they can make a ship that can travel more
than half the speed of light, there may be new dynamics at
work that can complicate SR, etc. or even cancel it. Anyway.
Do you know the rough value of c wherein relativity of
simultaneity can have effect or differences in the simultaneity
that will take a second?
Brutus
Jeckyl
news:1185457996.4...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 26, 4:32 am, Brutus <brutusrelativ...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Are there actual experiments that have proven this aspect of
>> Special Relativity or is it just a hypothesis without any
>> experimental support? I know time can dilate, length can
>> contract but it won't mean anything if the Relativity of
>> Simultaneity is not yet actually seen. In case they are
>> seen. Pls. mention all subatomic, atomic, cosmic examples
>> where these have occured.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Brutus
>
> Brutus, the relativity of simultaneity is essentially a definition.
Its more than that.
Without it thought experiments like the pole and barn would not work (you'd
get contradictions) and objects wouldn't keep their proper lengths etc
Without it you don't have transitive invertible Lorentz transforms and
relativity isn't really relative any more :)
Its more than just simple arbitrary clock synchronisation .. it is about the
actual time of events in one frame when observed in another.
Jeckyl
c is an exactly value
> wherein relativity of
> simultaneity can have effect or differences in the simultaneity
> that will take a second?
Its not just speed but distance that affect the simultaneity.
Brutus
> "Brutus" <brutusrelativ...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1185458356....@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 26, 9:15 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > Do you know the rough value of c
>
> c is an exactly value
I mean what approx speed of objects before the effects become
dramatic.
>
> > wherein relativity of
> > simultaneity can have effect or differences in the simultaneity
> > that will take a second?
>
> Its not just speed but distance that affect the simultaneity.
Isn't there anyone proposing any experiments to prove
the the relativity of simultaneity is real? If you use it on
two fast jetfighters. What's the maximum difference
in milliseconds for any effects that can be observed?
Brutus
Sam Wormley
The "relativity of simultaneity" is the concept that simultaneity is not
absolute, but dependent on the position of an observer. The relativity of
simultaneity is important for the GPS. See Hartle, Gravity, Addison-Wesley
(2003) pp 68-69.
Dono
>
> Without it you don't have transitive invertible Lorentz transforms and
> relativity isn't really relative any more :)
>
You are learning :-)
Dono
> That would be one way to get relative simultaneity in Galilean
> spacetime. If you want instantaneousness in Minkowski spacetime
> without relative simultaneity, then you have to synchronize clocks
> according to the equations
>
> x' = Y(v)(x-vt)
> t' = t/Y(v)
>
> where Y(v) = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and c is the speed of light.
>
Hey, Shobo
Are you still quoting from your "derivation"? You know, the one that
contains the elementary arithmetic error?
Or did you simply cut and paste from the Tangherlini paper?
Michael Asherman
news:Zl2qi.40916$Fc.29079@attbi_s21...
Shouldn't that be "speed" or "state of motion", and not "position" of the
observer?
Sam Wormley
Relative velocity and position. Thanks.
harry
> Hi,
>
> Are there actual experiments that have proven this aspect of
> Special Relativity or is it just a hypothesis without any
> experimental support?
It can never be irrefutably proven. But it was already common practice by
the end of the 19th century, and SRT gave it a solid basis: with length
contraction and time dilation, no absolute inertial motion can be detected -
and thus also no absolute simultaneity. As a result, simultaneity is only
conventional, freely chosen as outlined in for example
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ , paragraph 1.
In fact, you are free to choose any standard inertial coordinate system
together with its apparent simultaneity.
> I know time can dilate, length can
> contract but it won't mean anything if the Relativity of
> Simultaneity is not yet actually seen.
That's a misunderstanding! As you may understand now: "relativity of
simultaneity" is the consequence of *absense* of "actually seeing" absolute
inertial motion.
> In case they are
> seen. Pls. mention all subatomic, atomic, cosmic examples
> where these have occured.
No.
Cheers,
Harald
s...@microtec.net
> Hi,
>
> Are there actual experiments that have proven this aspect of
> Special Relativity or is it just a hypothesis without any
> experimental support? I know time can dilate, length can
> contract but it won't mean anything if the Relativity of
> Simultaneity is not yet actually seen.
The only real experimental support for time dilation is the
fact that atomic clocks (not mechanical clocks) run faster
in altitude, on account of a frequency emitted by ceasium
atoms (or other chosen element) that increases with altitude,
and for which there exists another explanations than time
dilation.
As for length contraction, no experimental proof was ever
brought forward.
André Michaud
Ben
wrote:
> "Brutus" <brutusrelativ...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1185449554.3...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Hi,
>
> > Are there actual experiments that have proven this aspect of
> > Special Relativity or is it just a hypothesis without any
> > experimental support?
>
> It can never be irrefutably proven. But it was already common practice by
> the end of the 19th century, and SRT gave it a solid basis: with length
> contraction and time dilation, no absolute inertial motion can be detected -
> and thus also no absolute simultaneity. As a result, simultaneity is only
> In fact, you are free to choose any standard inertial coordinate system
> together with its apparent simultaneity.
>
> > I know time can dilate, length can
> > contract but it won't mean anything if the Relativity of
> > Simultaneity is not yet actually seen.
>
> That's a misunderstanding! As you may understand now: "relativity of
> simultaneity" is the consequence of *absense* of "actually seeing" absolute
> inertial motion.
>
> > In case they are
> > seen. Pls. mention all subatomic, atomic, cosmic examples
> > where these have occured.
>
> No.
>
> Cheers,
> Harald
The notion of absolute simultaneity would include a notion of absolute
space. This is the current practice of imagining a geometric, space-
like section of space time. Some would see this as a gross abuse of
general relativity.
Newton's rotating bucket is an interesting counter argument to there
NOT being absolute space. It conjures up the interesting, "ether-
like" notion that all the distant mass in the universe, somehow
provides local masses with their inertia.
This cuts to the heart of interpreting general relativity, and has
been a major philosophical debate for some time. A recent work on
this is here
Ben
>
> news:1185449554.3...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Hi,
>
> > Are there actual experiments that have proven this aspect of
> > Special Relativity or is it just a hypothesis without any
> > experimental support?
>
> It can never be irrefutably proven. But it was already common practice by
> the end of the 19th century, and SRT gave it a solid basis: with length
> contraction and time dilation, no absolute inertial motion can be detected -
> and thus also no absolute simultaneity. As a result, simultaneity is only
> In fact, you are free to choose any standard inertial coordinate system
> together with its apparent simultaneity.
>
> > I know time can dilate, length can
> > contract but it won't mean anything if the Relativity of
> > Simultaneity is not yet actually seen.
>
> That's a misunderstanding! As you may understand now: "relativity of
> simultaneity" is the consequence of *absense* of "actually seeing" absolute
> inertial motion.
>
> > In case they are
> > seen. Pls. mention all subatomic, atomic, cosmic examples
> > where these have occured.
>
> No.
>
> Cheers,
> Harald
Here is another place to look.
Androcles
"Brutus" <brutusre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1185449554.3...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
: Hi,
:
: Are there actual experiments that have proven this aspect of
: Special Relativity or is it just a hypothesis without any
: experimental support? I know time can dilate,
Evidence please, brute.
roger
> On 26 juil, 07:32, Brutus <brutusrelativ...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Are there actual experiments that have proven this aspect of
> > Special Relativity or is it just a hypothesis without any
> > experimental support? I know time can dilate, length can
> > contract but it won't mean anything if the Relativity of
> > Simultaneity is not yet actually seen.
>
> The only real experimental support for time dilation is the
> fact that atomic clocks (not mechanical clocks) run faster
> in altitude, on account of a frequency emitted by ceasium
> atoms (or other chosen element) that increases with altitude,
> and for which there exists another explanations than time dilation.
Do you have any references to such experiments
for the case atomic clock vs. mechanical clock ?
Shubee
wrote:
> "Brutus" <brutusrelativ...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1185449554.3...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Hi,
>
> > Are there actual experiments that have proven this aspect of
> > Special Relativity or is it just a hypothesis without any
> > experimental support?
>
> It can never be irrefutably proven. But it was already common practice by
> the end of the 19th century, and SRT gave it a solid basis: with length
> contraction and time dilation, no absolute inertial motion can be detected -
> and thus also no absolute simultaneity. As a result, simultaneity is only
Relative simultaneity is only a convention but with an absolute frame
of reference simultaneity will be clearly distinguished physically as
absolute.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Ben Rudiak-Gould
> Are there actual experiments that have proven this aspect of
> Special Relativity or is it just a hypothesis without any
> experimental support?
Time dilation, length contraction, and the relativity of simultaneity are
all what I'd call coordinate effects, meaning that you have to set up a
coordinate system before you can "see" them. In particular, you have to
synchronize at least two clocks. So you can't really test relativity of
simultaneity as such; what you can test is a combination of coordinate
system construction and relativity of simultaneity. It involves a bunch of
clocks (at least four, I think), some of them moving at very high speeds,
and comparing their readings as they whiz by each other. This is a very hard
experiment to do. But you don't need to do it, because there are other
experiments that are easier to do and that are /just as fundamental/, or
even more so, because they involve fewer and simpler objects. Such a large
number of these experiments have been done now that there's no way to come
up with any self-consistent theory that agrees with all of them while also
predicting a different result for this particular complicated arrangement of
clocks. So relativity of simultaneity has to be true.
This also applies to length contraction. As for time dilation, I think you
can reasonably argue that the atmospheric muon count is a direct test of it,
since there's a physical reference frame (the atmosphere) and a moving clock
(the muon). But it's still not quite right, because the elapsed time between
production and decay of the muons isn't measured by colocated clocks, it's
inferred after the fact.
Most of the experiments that supposedly test time dilation are actually
testing the general relativistic prediction of differential elapsed time
along two worldlines between two events, which is an entirely different thing.
I should mention that each of the three coordinate effects has a
coordinate-free cousin that involves rotation instead of inertial motion.
The rotational version of relativity of simultaneity is the Sagnac effect.
This has been directly tested. I seem to remember that the first
experimental test was very expensive, and it was commented at the time that
the money was wasted for the reason I gave above -- in light of previous
results, there was no way the result could be anything but the predicted
one. (Which of course it was.)
The basic problem here is that popular science books and undergraduate
textbooks treat these coordinate effects as though they were the be-all and
end-all of special relativity. So people *want* them to be tested, and
because a lot of basic research is at the whim of public funds, there's a
pressure to allocate money to these tests instead of to a larger number of
cheaper tests which would more strongly confirm the theory. There's a
similar problem with the International Space Station -- probably a huge
waste of money, but people want a space station. Then there's the LHC, where
it's the other way around -- physicists really want it to exist, so they
have to con the public into funding it by pretending that it'll have some
practical value.
-- Ben
s...@microtec.net
> <s...@microtec.net> wrote
>
> > On 26 juil, 07:32, Brutus <brutusrelativ...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Are there actual experiments that have proven this aspect of
> > > Special Relativity or is it just a hypothesis without any
> > > experimental support? I know time can dilate, length can
> > > contract but it won't mean anything if the Relativity of
> > > Simultaneity is not yet actually seen.
>
> > The only real experimental support for time dilation is the
> > fact that atomic clocks (not mechanical clocks) run faster
> > in altitude, on account of a frequency emitted by ceasium
> > atoms (or other chosen element) that increases with altitude,
> > and for which there exists another explanations than time dilation.
>
> Do you have any references to such experiments
> for the case atomic clock vs. mechanical clock ?
I am afraid not.
The last thing the community ever wanted was anybody
doing this expriment, so none was ever projected, however
easy it would have been to carry out.
The reason : no readily available alternate theory is in
the works in the community in case of any difference
with atomic clock behavior.
Not too late though... if anyone in the community
has the guts to try having one scheduled.
André Michaud
Jeckyl
news:1185462853.6...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
No .. I already know.
Jeckyl
news:ZB4qi.2039$7c....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
There is plenty of experimental evidence for time dilation .. that is
definitely observed. decay rates of elementary particles, slowing of atomic
clocks etc.
Length contraction and relativity of simultaneity are much more difficult to
observe experimentally .. maybe someone will (or already has) be smart
enough to come up with a practical experiment to directly test for those.
AFAIK there have been no direct observation of it.
Dono
So, are the Shitbert-jem transforms invertible?
Are the Shitbert-jem transforms transitive?
Jeckyl
> <s...@microtec.net> wrote
>> On 26 juil, 07:32, Brutus <brutusrelativ...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Are there actual experiments that have proven this aspect of
>> > Special Relativity or is it just a hypothesis without any
>> > experimental support? I know time can dilate, length can
>> > contract but it won't mean anything if the Relativity of
>> > Simultaneity is not yet actually seen.
>>
>> The only real experimental support for time dilation is the
>> fact that atomic clocks (not mechanical clocks) run faster
>> in altitude, on account of a frequency emitted by ceasium
>> atoms (or other chosen element) that increases with altitude,
>> and for which there exists another explanations than time dilation.
>
> Do you have any references to such experiments
> for the case atomic clock vs. mechanical clock ?
mechanical clocks are not accurate enough to measure the differences.
for some experiments see:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#4.
tests of time dilation
Jeckyl
I've not seen them to be able to tell you.
Dono
There are no tests for relativity of simultaneity.
There are some older tests for length contraction but not in the SR
framework, they have been done in the older framework of the Lorentz
theory from his 1904 paper (assuming that length contraction is
present in all frames in "absolute motion" with respect to the
"aether"), i.e. assuming that the FitzGerald contraction that made the
"electrons into ellipsoids" is true. The results (Trouton/Chase/
Tomascheck) have all been negative, no contraction outside the error
bars could be detected.
There are direct tests of time dilation (Ives-Stilwell, G.Saathof)
based on the transverse Doppler effect. They are considered direct
tests of time dilation (in addition to the tests on muon life).
Dono
> "Dono" <sa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1185492161....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jul 26, 4:17 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> "Dono" <sa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1185462853.6...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Jul 26, 7:00 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Without it you don't have transitive invertible Lorentz transforms and
> >> >> relativity isn't really relative any more :)
>
> >> > You are learning :-)
>
> >> No .. I already know.
>
> > So, are the Shitbert-jem transforms invertible?
> > Are the Shitbert-jem transforms transitive?
>
> I've not seen them to be able to tell you.
Shitbert doesn't "advertise" them anymore, so no one knows what they
really are.
According to jem they might be of the form:
[x', t'] = [g(x-v*(t-f(x))), g(t-f(x)-v*x)-f(g(x-v*(t-f(x))))].
with c=1. g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2).
Jeckyl
I don't see a definition for what f() is .. is it a function or a constant
or ???
I'd rather not comment on what is someone's version of someone else's
version of what they might be.
Dono
It is an arbitrary function.
Shubee
That's very wise of you. The problem that Dono doesn't understand is
exercise 1 and 2 of http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
The riddle contained in that unusual problem set is based on the
material developed in section 4 of http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
Dono
> The riddle contained in that unusual problem set is based on the
> material developed in section 4 ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> Shubee
Thank you, Shitbert
So, can you show how your transform satisfies the transitivity
requirement? Use math (if you can).
Jeckyl
Is there a web-page with info about this transform on it?
Jeckyl
news:1185497862.2...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
What a terribly presented paper .. thing introduced without beingdefined,
equations pulled out of thin air.
I see nothing there that looks like the transform dono was talking about ..
although there are function f and g that are suddenly introduced without
ever being defined or mentioned immediately after the hilarious line: "Solve
these functional equations by just writing down the answer"
Shubee
> "Shubee" <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> I'd rather not comment on what is someone's version of someone else's
> >> version of what they might be.
> > That's very wise of you. The problem that Dono doesn't understand is
> > exercise 1 and 2 of
> >http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
> What a terribly presented paper .. thing introduced without being defined,
> equations pulled out of thin air.
The page http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
is just a footnote to the page http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
What isn't defined?
> I see nothing there that looks like the transform dono was talking about ..
That's because he wants you to condemn the exercises marked 1 and 2
without you even knowing what the problems are exactly. The exercises
that he is referring to are at the very end of the page.
> although there are function f and g that are suddenly introduced without
> ever being defined or mentioned immediately after the hilarious line: "Solve
> these functional equations by just writing down the answer"
Those functions f and g are arbitrary. In the combination given, isn't
it trivial to prove that the functions A and B, clearly defined in
terms of the arbitrary f and g, solve the given functional equations?
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Jeckyl
news:1185501980.9...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 26, 6:41 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "Shubee" <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> >> version of what they might be.
>>
>> > That's very wise of you. The problem that Dono doesn't understand is
>> > exercise 1 and 2 of
>> >http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
>>
>> What a terribly presented paper .. thing introduced without beingdefined,
>> equations pulled out of thin air.
>
>
>> I see nothing there that looks like the transform dono was talking about
>> ..
>
> the page.
>
>> although there are function f and g that are suddenly introduced without
>> ever being defined or mentioned immediately after the hilarious line:
>> "Solve
>> these functional equations by just writing down the answer"
>
> terms of arbitrary f and g, solve the given functional equations?
If you had shown what functions A and B are, and what the subscript means,
and how they relate to function f and g, which mysteriously appear then
disappear from the text, then possibly yes .. But its just so very poorly
explained.
Shubee
> If you had shown what functions A and B are, and what the subscript means,
> and how they relate to function f and g, which mysteriously appear then
> disappear from the text, then possibly yes .. But its just so very poorly
> explained.
Both A and B are defined as a one-parameter family of functions.
The transformations are required to form a group. Have you never heard
of a one-parameter transformation group?
The functions f and g in combination with exp(theta) are stated to be
a solution to the functional equations, which originate from requiring
a group structure to the given transformation. Does that mean anything
to you?
Shubee
Jeckyl
> On Jul 26, 7:36 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> If you had shown what functions A and B are, and what the subscript
>> means,
>> and how they relate to function f and g, which mysteriously appear then
>> disappear from the text, then possibly yes .. But its just so very poorly
>> explained.
>
> Both A and B are defined as a one-parameter family of functions.
So .. the subscript on them .. is that an angle?
> The transformations are required to form a group. Have you never heard
> of a one-parameter transformation group?
I know my gruop theory thanks
> The functions f and g in combination with exp(theta) are stated to be
> a solution to the functional equations, which originate from requiring
> a group structure to the given transformation. Does that mean anything
> to you?
Possibly .. just got to figure out what it is you're actually saying on that
page .. it is very unclear and poorly specified.
Shubee
>
> news:1185504838....@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 26, 7:36 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> If you had shown what functions A and B are, and what the subscript
> >> means,
> >> and how they relate to function f and g, which mysteriously appear then
> >> disappear from the text, then possibly yes .. But its just so very poorly
> >> explained.
>
> > Both A and B are defined as a one-parameter family of functions.
>
> So .. the subscript on them .. is that an angle?
In a one-parameter transformation group, every element is a function
of a parameter such that the group product of two transformations is
given by simply adding the two parameters.
Jeckyl
> On Jul 26, 8:17 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "Shubee" <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1185504838....@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jul 26, 7:36 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> If you had shown what functions A and B are, and what the subscript
>> >> means,
>> >> and how they relate to function f and g, which mysteriously appear
>> >> then
>> >> disappear from the text, then possibly yes .. But its just so very
>> >> poorly
>> >> explained.
>>
>> > Both A and B are defined as a one-parameter family of functions.
>>
>> So .. the subscript on them .. is that an angle?
>
> In a one-parameter transformation group, every element is a function
> of a parameter such that the group product of two transformations is
> given by simply adding the two parameters.
Lets see if you can explain what you're saying in the page:
> Let c=1.
You don't appear to use 'c' anywhere until a passing occurence toward the
end .. why do you mention it?
> Let A_theta and B_theta be a one-parameter family of functions.
So are you saying that there is a family of two functions, A_theta and
B_theta. But you dont' say anything about A_theta and B_theta, or what
theta is, or how theta relates to the functions A_theta and B_theta. Can
you give an example of A_theta and B_theta ??
Shubee
> Can you give an example of A_theta and B_theta ??
The paper gives a very clear example of A_theta and B_theta:
"You'll notice immediately that if f(x)=x and g(x)=x, a=-1 and b=1,
then we get the ordinary Lorentz transformation:"
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
Shubee
Jeckyl
> On Jul 26, 9:20 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> Can you give an example of A_theta and B_theta ??
>
> The paper gives a very clear example of A_theta and B_theta:
>
> "You'll notice immediately that if f(x)=x and g(x)=x, a=-1 and b=1,
> then we get the ordinary Lorentz transformation:"
You have said the being a group implies A_phi+theta(x) = A_phi(2A_theta(x))
... where did that 2 come from and why is it necessary?
You did do a pull-it-out-of-our-arse example of
A_theta(x) = f^-1[e^(a.theta).f(x/2)]
B_theta(x) = g^-1[e^(b.theta).g(x/2)]
And that does satisfy the condition, are they the only forms of A_theta and
B_theta? If so, why? if not, why did you pick those particular ones?
And why is it that x' and t' must be the sum and difference respectively of
two values?
You make upsupported and unexplainded leaps in that page.
Eric Gisse
You will also notice that Shooby doesn't even bother _showing_ that
his "group" is a group, much less the Lorentz group. Also, he doesn't
bother doing the _FIRST THING_ he said: finding the invariants of the
group.
I don't see why he even bothers.
>
> Shubee
Sue...
> Hi,
>
> Are there actual experiments that have proven this aspect of
> Special Relativity or is it just a hypothesis without any
> contract but it won't mean anything if the Relativity of
> seen. Pls. mention all subatomic, atomic, cosmic examples
> where these have occured.
Assuming you are refering to Einstein's thought experiment
with the lightning, train and embankment.
It isn't specific enough about the light propagation model
being used, and even seems switch between models in
the narrative. So it isn't something subject to experiment.
There are plenty of good reasons to use imaginary time
and it is so commonplace today we don't give it a second
thought. The prevailing views about light and inerta
in the early 1900's *appeared* in conflict with Maxwell's
equations so the thought experiment, however clumsy
we view it today, seems to have been effective at
opening some minds to the notion that physics doesn't
need a fixed background for space and time to play out
and in fact the notion is absurd whether Maxwell's
equations are admitted or not.
Without first showing the absurdity of the prevailing
views on their own terms, they could be used to reject
out of hand, a more generalised view:
< It is to be found rather in the fact of his
recognition that the four-dimensional
space-time continuum of the theory of relativity,
in its most essential formal properties, shows
a pronounced relationship to the three-dimensional
continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. 1 In
order to give due prominence to this relationship,
however, we must replace the usual time
co-ordinate t by an imaginary magnitude
sqrt(-1)
ct proportional to it. Under these conditions,
the natural laws satisfying the demands of the
(special) theory of relativity assume mathematical
forms, in which the time co-ordinate plays exactly
the same rôle as the three space co-ordinates. >>
http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html
Sue...
>
> Thanks!
>
> Brutus
Jeckyl
news:1185521019....@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>On Jul 26, 8:32 am, Brutus <brutusrelativ...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Are there actual experiments that have proven this aspect of
>> Special Relativity or is it just a hypothesis without any
>> experimental support? I know time can dilate, length can
>> contract but it won't mean anything if the Relativity of
>> Simultaneity is not yet actually seen. In case they are
>> seen. Pls. mention all subatomic, atomic, cosmic examples
>> where these have occured.
>
>Assuming you are refering to Einstein's thought experiment
>with the lightning, train and embankment.
>
>It isn't specific enough about the light propagation model
>being used, and even seems switch between models in
>the narrative. So it isn't something subject to experiment.
It doesn't matter what light propogation model is used, as long as there is
a fastest possible speed that is the same in all inertial frames.
harry
> On Jul 26, 9:15 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "Brutus" <brutusrelativ...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1185452040....@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 26, 7:50 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >> "Brutus" <brutusrelativ...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:1185449554.3...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > Hi,
>>
>> >> > Are there actual experiments that have proven this aspect of
>> >> > Special Relativity or is it just a hypothesis without any
>> >> > experimental support? I know time can dilate, length can
>> >> > contract but it won't mean anything if the Relativity of
>> >> > Simultaneity is not yet actually seen. In case they are
>> >> > seen. Pls. mention all subatomic, atomic, cosmic examples
>> >> > where these have occured.
>>
>>
>> >> AFAIK, because the things we can get up to velocities where we can
>> >> observe
>> >> time dilation are generally point particles, we cannot observe
>> >> simultaneity
>> >> and length contraction effects.
>>
>> > Thanks. So it means there is possibility it may not
>> > hold in the actual world. So the following
>>
>> Very unlikely .. we've simply not seen it yet
>>
>> >http://www.saburchill.com/physics/chapters/0087.html
>> > may just be a relativity assumption that can still be
>> > disproven in the future.
>>
>> > can you recommend an experiment where relativity of
>> > simultaneity can be proven or disproven above atomic
>> > scale, but is such experiment impossible until the
>> > future when they can create relativistic propulsion
>> > system? (note that since relativistic propulsion
>> > system may just be a crackpot dream, then there
>> > will never be any experiment that can prove relativity
>> > of simultaneity hence we can say it is just like ether
>> > where nothing can be observed hence we can put it away).
>>
>> Ether (as in the LET ether) is different .. it is not possible to even
>> theoretically imagine an experiment that can measure it, as it neatly
>> makes
>> sure all measurement of lengths and times end up hiding the existence of
>> an
>> ether frame.
>>
>> But as far as length contraction and simultaneity, there are some thought
>> experiments (like the pole and barn) that could (in theory) be
>> implemented
>> and give you a result.
>>
>> Its more a matter of practicality than some underlying impossibility.-
>> Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> When we give examples of relativity of simultaneity, we always use
> relativistic trains, etc. But realistically, what's the fastest speed
> that a propulsion can ever accomplish in the future, maybe just
> 1/10,000 the speed of light? I don't think there will ever be a ship
> that can travel at 1/3 the speed of light and since relativity of
> simultaneity can only be dramatic for speeds close to light.
Wrong: it's a first order problem, and thus relatively easy to "measure" at
low speeds - in fact this is important for GPS satellites. ("measure"
instead of measure: see my earlier reply to you).
Harald
harry
"Ben" <BenS...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185468178.8...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 26, 12:13 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
> wrote:
>> "Brutus" <brutusrelativ...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1185449554.3...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Hi,
>>
>> > Are there actual experiments that have proven this aspect of
>> > Special Relativity or is it just a hypothesis without any
>> > experimental support?
>>
>> the end of the 19th century, and SRT gave it a solid basis: with length
>> contraction and time dilation, no absolute inertial motion can be
>> detected -
>> and thus also no absolute simultaneity. As a result, simultaneity is only
>> conventional, freely chosen as outlined in for
>> examplehttp://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/, paragraph 1.
>> In fact, you are free to choose any standard inertial coordinate system
>> together with its apparent simultaneity.
>>
>> > I know time can dilate, length can
>> > contract but it won't mean anything if the Relativity of
>> > Simultaneity is not yet actually seen.
>>
>> simultaneity" is the consequence of *absense* of "actually seeing"
>> absolute
>> inertial motion.
>>
>> > In case they are
>> > seen. Pls. mention all subatomic, atomic, cosmic examples
>> > where these have occured.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Harald
>
> The notion of absolute simultaneity would include a notion of absolute
> space. This is the current practice of imagining a geometric, space-
> like section of space time. Some would see this as a gross abuse of
> general relativity.
> Newton's rotating bucket is an interesting counter argument to there
> NOT being absolute space. It conjures up the interesting, "ether-
> like" notion that all the distant mass in the universe, somehow
> provides local masses with their inertia.
> This cuts to the heart of interpreting general relativity, and has
> been a major philosophical debate for some time. A recent work on
> this is here
>
> http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-362X%2819700507%2967%3A9%3C259%3ASOHTSP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage
Not recent, and rather poor I'd say ("philosophical truth"??); but it's
certainly interesting, thanks! :-)
Harald
Shubee
> "Shubee" <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1185511483.7...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 26, 9:20 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> Can you give an example of A_theta and B_theta ??
>
> > The paper gives a very clear example of A_theta and B_theta:
>
> > "You'll notice immediately that if f(x)=x and g(x)=x, a=-1 and b=1,
> > then we get the ordinary Lorentz transformation:"
>
> You have said the being a group implies A_phi+theta(x) = A_phi(2A_theta(x))
> ... where did that 2 come from and why is it necessary?
Recall that the group is a group of transformations.
One transformation looks like
x' = A_theta(x+t) + B_theta(x-t)
t' = A_theta(x+t) - B_theta(x-t)
Another looks like
x'' = A_phi(x'+t') + B_phi(x'-t')
t'' = A_phi(x'+t') - B_phi(x'-t')
Just substitute the first set of equations into the second and see
what you get.
> You did do a pull-it-out-of-our-arse example of
>
> A_theta(x) = f^-1[e^(a.theta).f(x/2)]
> B_theta(x) = g^-1[e^(b.theta).g(x/2)]
Honestly, I solved the functional equation by just writing down the
answer. Does that prove that I'm a mathematical genius to you?
> And that does satisfy the condition, are they the only forms of A_theta and
> B_theta? If so, why? if not, why did you pick those particular ones?
I don't recall giving much thought to other kinds of solutions. I only
remember that one solution being almost obvious.
> And why is it that x' and t' must be the sum and difference respectively of
> two values?
Frequently, mathematicians are like magicians and never reveal the
source of their inspiration.
> You make upsupported and unexplainded leaps in that page.
And those are the solved problems! I can explain, support and prove
everything there. I must remind you that Dono was directing your
attention to the unsolved exercises numbered 1 and 2 at the end of the
page.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
Shubee
Jeckyl
> On Jul 26, 11:00 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "Shubee" <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1185511483.7...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jul 26, 9:20 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Can you give an example of A_theta and B_theta ??
>>
>> > The paper gives a very clear example of A_theta and B_theta:
>>
>> > "You'll notice immediately that if f(x)=x and g(x)=x, a=-1 and b=1,
>> > then we get the ordinary Lorentz transformation:"
>>
>> You have said the being a group implies A_phi+theta(x) =
>> A_phi(2A_theta(x))
>> ... where did that 2 come from and why is it necessary?
>
> Recall that the group is a group of transformations.
> One transformation looks like
> x' = A_theta(x+t) + B_theta(x-t)
> t' = A_theta(x+t) - B_theta(x-t)
> Another looks like
> x'' = A_phi(x'+t') + B_phi(x'-t')
> t'' = A_phi(x'+t') - B_phi(x'-t')
> Just substitute the first set of equations into the second and see
> what you get.
Aha .. ok , I see why you're getting the two.
>> You did do a pull-it-out-of-our-arse example of
>> A_theta(x) = f^-1[e^(a.theta).f(x/2)]
>> B_theta(x) = g^-1[e^(b.theta).g(x/2)]
>
> Honestly, I solved the functional equation by just writing down the
> answer. Does that prove that I'm a mathematical genius to you?
No
>> And that does satisfy the condition, are they the only forms of A_theta
>> and
>> B_theta? If so, why? if not, why did you pick those particular ones?
> I don't recall giving much thought to other kinds of solutions. I only
> remember that one solution being almost obvious.
A much more obvious immediate answer is:
A_theta(x) = e^theta.x/2
Guess you can add in some a's and f()'s to make it more interesting :)
>> And why is it that x' and t' must be the sum and difference respectively
>> of
>> two values?
> Frequently, mathematicians are like magicians and never reveal the
> source of their inspiration.
:)
>> You make upsupported and unexplainded leaps in that page.
> And those are the solved problems! I can explain, support and prove
> everything there. I must remind you that Dono was directing your
> attention to the unsolved exercises numbered 1 and 2 at the end of the
> page.
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
They don't look like what he was talking about .. but that was second or
third hand information.
Dono
Shitbert writes in his "paper" :
"Solve these functional equations by just writing down the answer"
hahahahaha,this is really precious, Shitbert. You pulled out the
"solution" out of your butt. To make matters worse, it isn't even a
valid solution. Very easy to show it isn't a solution:
1. Start with A_theta(2 A_theta)=a_2*theta (the simplified Shitbert
equation for theta=phi)
2. On te other hand, according to you, the solution is
A_theta(2A_theta)=f_inv(exp_a*theta*f(A_theta))
3. So, Shobo, you will need to show that
A_2*theta=f_inv(exp_a*theta*f(A_theta))
Good luck with that.
Now, you fart around for a while and you pull out another rabbit from
your hat:
"There it is: A glorious nonlinear version of the Lorentz
transformation group."
Actually you didn't derive ANY nonlinear version of the Lorentz
transform, you simply wrote down the stock (linear) version of the
Lorentz transform.
A little further down, at the bottom of the page, you produce another
"pearl", your exercises 1 and 2. Your transforms 1 have NOTHING to do
with the recursive functions A and B, they are just some other
"rabbit". You are unable to prove that equations 1 represent a valid
set of transforms since you are unable to show that they are
transitive.
Of course, Eric's objections add to the list. Give it up, Shitbert,
you will never pass peer review, so you never publish your
"masterpiece"
Jeckyl
Actually it is .. pretty easy to show .. aren't you up to it?
> 1. Start with A_theta(2 A_theta)=a_2*theta (the simplified Shitbert
> equation for theta=phi)
>
> 2. On te other hand, according to you, the solution is
> A_theta(2A_theta)=f_inv(exp_a*theta*f(A_theta))
> 3. So, Shobo, you will need to show that
> A_2*theta=f_inv(exp_a*theta*f(A_theta))
>
> Good luck with that.
A_theta(x) = f_inv[e^(a.theta).f(x/2)]
A_(theta+theta)(x) = f_inv[e^(a.(theta+theta)).f(x/2)]
A_theta(2A_theta(x))
= f_inv[e^(a.theta).f(2A_theta(x)/2)]
= f_inv[e^(a.theta).f(A_theta(x))]
= f_inv[e^(a.theta).f(f_inv[e^(a.theta).f(x/2)])]
= f_inv[e^(a.theta).e^(a.theta).f(x/2)]
= f_inv[e^(a.(theta+theta)).f(x/2)]
= A_(theta+theta)(x)
get it now dodo?
Dono
Congratulations, clown. You missed the whole point. How about the rest?
Tom Roberts
> Do you have any references to such experiments
> for the case atomic clock vs. mechanical clock ?
There is no mechanical clock on earth for which a meaningful comparison
could be made. But pulsars are distant "mechanical clocks" that are
basically spinning objects which emit a focused radio pulse visible on
earth. These pulsars are as accurate as atomic clocks, and have been
compared to them over long periods (years).
I have no reference, but this is mentioned in textbooks; google is your
friend.
srp wrote:
> The last thing the community ever wanted was anybody
> doing this expriment, so none was ever projected, however
> easy it would have been to carry out.
Nonsense. See above.
> The reason : no readily available alternate theory is in
> the works in the community in case of any difference
> with atomic clock behavior.
You REALLY have a warped sense of what science is and how scientists
behave. In fact, physicists ROUTINELY look for phenomena for which no
"readily available alternate theory" is available -- the entire field of
particle physics is based on this, and has been since its inception ~50
years ago. History has shown that every new machine with a significant
increase in particle energy teaches us completely new and unexpected --
that's why physicists are so interested in the LHC coming on line next
year, and why the community is mobilizing behind construction of the ILC....
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> As for length contraction, no experimental proof was ever
> brought forward.
The fact that current-carrying wires are neutral but generate a magnetic
field (in their rest frame) is a demonstration of length contraction,
given Maxwell's equations. Yes, this is length contraction for the
electron drift velocity of a few mm/second(!).
Tom Roberts
Jeckyl
You didn't have a point .. the only points iunvolved are you trying to score
points and failing every time. Sad little dodo
> How about the rest?
Rest of what? Show that you've made yourself look a fool once again ..
that's been done so many times, its not funny.
jaydee
wahaha, splendid, two morons assfoken each other
may i watch further?
Dono
Rest of this,the stuff that you conveniently didn't answer, moron:
"Now, you fart around for a while and you pull out another rabbit from
your hat:
"There it is: A glorious nonlinear version of the Lorentz
transformation group."
Actually you didn't derive ANY nonlinear version of the Lorentz
transform, you simply wrote down the stock (linear) version of the
Lorentz transform.
A little further down, at the bottom of the page, you produce another
"pearl", your exercises 1 and 2. Your transforms 1 have NOTHING to do
with the recursive functions A and B, they are just some other
"rabbit". You are unable to prove that equations 1 represent a valid
set of transforms since you are unable to show that they are
transitive.
Of course, Eric's objections add to the list. Give it up, Shitbert,
you will never pass peer review, so you never publish your
"masterpiece" "
You see, clown, Shitbert kept mum when confronted with the above
because he is smarter than you, he realised what's wrong with his
"paper". But you had to jump in in order to show off , now try
answering the rest for him.
Has the Nobel committee emailed you that Nobel prize for falsifying
the Principle of Relativity yet?
Jeckyl
I answered what I wanted to answer.
[snip]
> You see, clown, Shitbert kept mum when confronted with the above
> because he is smarter than you, he realised what's wrong with his
> "paper". But you had to jump in in order to show off ,
No .. just showing that you're a fool once again .. its so easy. Dropkicked
you again for another goal.
> Has the Nobel committee emailed you that Nobel prize for falsifying
> the Principle of Relativity yet?
Fuck off dodo you idiot .. do you realise what a fool you look?
Dono
You answered what you COULD answer. You can't answer the more
difficult parts, that much is obvious.
> [snip]
>
> > You see, clown, Shitbert kept mum when confronted with the above
> > because he is smarter than you, he realised what's wrong with his
> > "paper". But you had to jump in in order to show off ,
>
> No .. just showing that you're a fool once again .. its so easy. Dropkicked
> you again for another goal.
>
It is hard to believe but Shitbert is showing that he's smarter than
you, you plunged your nose in a fresh turd and you can't get out. The
more you post, like in the other cases, the more you get your nose
rubbed in shit. :-)
> > Has the Nobel committee emailed you that Nobel prize for falsifying
> > the Principle of Relativity yet?
>
> Fuck off dodo you idiot .. do you realise what a fool you look?
So, did they email you the Nobel for your "brilliant contribution" in
falsifying the principle of Relativity?
Jeckyl
You couldn't answer any of it.
DODO says: "To make matters worse, it isn't even a valid solution. Very easy
to show it isn't a solution:"
But it was .. and trivial to show .. You couldn't even manage that.
You didn't seem to be actually asking for anything in particular in the
remainder of your post .. just ranting and raving about what you think is
wrong. Seeing you can't get even the simplest things right, your other
criticism don't amount to much unless you can show your working to support
it.
> So, did they email you the Nobel for your "brilliant contribution" in
> falsifying the principle of Relativity?
Yeup .. it looks great up on my shelf, next to the peace prize, and the
academy award.
Dono
Love it when you act dumb. You manage to act dumber than you are, a
difficult feat. Here is what I was asking Shitbert (he was very smart
not to answer, so you get to answer in his place):
"You are unable to prove that equations 1 represent a valid
set of transforms since you are unable to show that they are
transitive. "
>
> > So, did they email you the Nobel for your "brilliant contribution" in
> > falsifying the principle of Relativity?
>
> Yeup .. it looks great up on my shelf, next to the peace prize, and the
> academy award.
Congratulations, bozo! You deserve it!
Jeckyl
> Love it when you act dumb.
For you, its no act
> You manage to act dumber than you are, a
> difficult feat. Here is what I was asking Shitbert (he was very smart
> not to answer, so you get to answer in his place):
>
> "You are unable to prove that equations 1 represent a valid
> set of transforms since you are unable to show that they are
> transitive. "
That's not a question. Try again.
>> > So, did they email you the Nobel for your "brilliant contribution" in
>> > falsifying the principle of Relativity?
>>
>> Yeup .. it looks great up on my shelf, next to the peace prize, and the
>> academy award.
>
> Congratulations, bozo! You deserve it!
Actually, I don't, as I never did such a thing .. but if they're silly
enough to send it to me, I might as well keep it.
Dono
> "Dono" <sa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1185763926.1...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Love it when you act dumb.
>
> For you, its no act
>
> > You manage to act dumber than you are, a
> > difficult feat. Here is what I was asking Shitbert (he was very smart
> > not to answer, so you get to answer in his place):
>
> > "You are unable to prove that equations 1 represent a valid
> > set of transforms since you are unable to show that they are
> > transitive. "
>
> That's not a question. Try again.
You are trying very hard to prove how stupid you really are, you can
relax now, you convinced everybody.
Question for Jerkyl: can you prove that Shitbert transform is
transitive?
>
> >> > So, did they email you the Nobel for your "brilliant contribution" in
> >> > falsifying the principle of Relativity?
>
> >> Yeup .. it looks great up on my shelf, next to the peace prize, and the
> >> academy award.
>
> > Congratulations, bozo! You deserve it!
>
> Actually, I don't, as I never did such a thing .. but if they're silly
> enough to send it to me, I might as well keep it.
You are so modest, you "forgot" about your predicting a non-null
result for MMX with sound (in air :-)).
Jeckyl
> On Jul 29, 8:12 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "Dono" <sa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1185763926.1...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Love it when you act dumb.
>>
>> For you, its no act
>>
>> > You manage to act dumber than you are, a
>> > difficult feat. Here is what I was asking Shitbert (he was very smart
>> > not to answer, so you get to answer in his place):
>>
>> > "You are unable to prove that equations 1 represent a valid
>> > set of transforms since you are unable to show that they are
>> > transitive. "
>>
>> That's not a question. Try again.
>
> You are trying very hard to prove how stupid you really are, you can
> relax now, you convinced everybody.
>
> Question for Jerkyl: can you prove that Shitbert transform is
> transitive?
The one in his excersise 1?
>> >> > So, did they email you the Nobel for your "brilliant contribution"
>> >> > in
>> >> > falsifying the principle of Relativity?
>> >> Yeup .. it looks great up on my shelf, next to the peace prize, and
>> >> the
>> >> academy award.
>> > Congratulations, bozo! You deserve it!
>> Actually, I don't, as I never did such a thing .. but if they're silly
>> enough to send it to me, I might as well keep it.
> You are so modest, you "forgot" about your predicting a non-null
> result for MMX with sound (in air :-)).
Prove it would give a null result using sound waves instead of light within
a moving medium (eg moving air).
Further, show how a non-null results would disproof the principle of
relativity.
Dono
> "Dono" <sa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1185765809....@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jul 29, 8:12 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> "Dono" <sa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1185763926.1...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Love it when you act dumb.
>
> >> For you, its no act
>
> >> > You manage to act dumber than you are, a
> >> > difficult feat. Here is what I was asking Shitbert (he was very smart
> >> > not to answer, so you get to answer in his place):
>
> >> > "You are unable to prove that equations 1 represent a valid
> >> > set of transforms since you are unable to show that they are
> >> > transitive. "
>
> >> That's not a question. Try again.
>
> > You are trying very hard to prove how stupid you really are, you can
> > relax now, you convinced everybody.
>
> > Question for Jerkyl: can you prove that Shitbert transform is
> > transitive?
>
> The one in his excersise 1?
>
Yes
> >> >> > So, did they email you the Nobel for your "brilliant contribution"
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > falsifying the principle of Relativity?
> >> >> Yeup .. it looks great up on my shelf, next to the peace prize, and
> >> >> the
> >> >> academy award.
> >> > Congratulations, bozo! You deserve it!
> >> Actually, I don't, as I never did such a thing .. but if they're silly
> >> enough to send it to me, I might as well keep it.
> > You are so modest, you "forgot" about your predicting a non-null
> > result for MMX with sound (in air :-)).
>
> Prove it would give a null result using sound waves instead of light within
> a moving medium (eg moving air).
>
Idiot, if it gave a non-null result it would be violating the
principle of relativity. You would be able to use it
to dertmine the motion of the Earth from within a closed lab. This is
why you got the Nobel prize for.
> Further, show how a non-null results would disproof the principle of
> relativity.
You ARE an idiot.
Jeckyl
Fool .. it would only mean you could determine the velocity of the
experimental equipment wrt the air (and vice versa)
BTW: We can already determine the motion of the earth within a closed lab,
in that we can measure its rotation.
Dono
You continue to advertise your stupidity. Sound is not any different
from light. MMX experiments with light in air produce a null result.
> BTW: We can already determine the motion of the earth within a closed lab, in that we can measure its rotation.
Sure, but this is NOT what MMX is all about. Concemtrate, we are still
talking MMX, right?
Do you know how we measure the Earth rotation (hint: it is NOT an MMX
class experiment)
Jeckyl
HAHAHAHA .. DODO quote of the month: "Sound is not any different to light"
Talk about advertising stupidity .. how more stupid do you need to get?
> MMX experiments with light in air produce a null result.
So what? I never said they didn't.
>> BTW: We can already determine the motion of the earth within a closed
>> lab, in that we can measure its rotation.
>
> Sure, but this is NOT what MMX is all about. Concemtrate, we are still
> talking MMX, right?
God only know what you are talking about .. just trying to score points and
failing again by the looks of things
> Do you know how we measure the Earth rotation
Do you? You seemed to think that being able to do that would violate PoR
> (hint: it is NOT an MMX class experiment)
I didn't say it was.
Jeckyl
It is very easy to show (with a bit of expanding and cancelling) that for
the transform (call it T_v) in his exercise 1, that we have
T_0(x,t) = (x,t) .. so we have an identity T_0
T_[-v](T_v(x,t)) = (x,t) .. so we have an inverse of T_v = T_[-v]
Still looking at transitivity .. got some real work to do now, so will look
later.
Dono
> > You continue to advertise your stupidity. Sound is not any different
> > from light.
>
> HAHAHAHA .. DODO quote of the month: "Sound is not any different to light"
>
> Talk about advertising stupidity .. how more stupid do you need to get?
>
Sound speed is only a function of the medium characteristics, exactly
like light. You mean, you didn't know that? The laughs are on you:-)
> > MMX experiments with light in air produce a null result.
>
> So what? I never said they didn't.
>
Since sound speed behaves exactly like light speed, the results of
the experiments with light predict the outcome of the experiments with
sound. You didn't know this one either, did you?
> >> BTW: We can already determine the motion of the earth within a closed
> >> lab, in that we can measure its rotation.
>
> > Sure, but this is NOT what MMX is all about. Concemtrate, we are still
> > talking MMX, right?
>
> God only know what you are talking about .. just trying to score points and
> failing again by the looks of things
>
I already drop kicked you twice in this post only. From 40 yards and
from 50.
> > Do you know how we measure the Earth rotation
>
> Do you? You seemed to think that being able to do that would violate PoR
>
> > (hint: it is NOT an MMX class experiment)
>
> I didn't say it was.
1. So, if it isn't MMX , it is not relevant for your argument.
2. A non-null result for a sound based MMX would violate PoR (you
already got the Nobel prize for this "discovery")
3. A null result for sound based MMX (the correct outcome) is not
usable for determining Earth motion wrt to the distant stars
4. So, once again, do you know what class of experiment is being used
in determining the Earth motion? You must be desperately googling
things for the last day or so :-)
Dono
Not a very good proof, but I'll let it slide.
> Still looking at transitivity .. got some real work to do now, so will look
> later.
Yes, keep looking. Ever wondered why Shitbert didn't answer this
one :-)
Jeckyl
> On Jul 29, 10:13 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> > You continue to advertise your stupidity. Sound is not any different
>> > from light.
>> HAHAHAHA .. DODO quote of the month: "Sound is not any different to
>> light"
>> Talk about advertising stupidity .. how more stupid do you need to get?
> Sound speed is only a function of the medium characteristics, exactly
> like light. You mean, you didn't know that? The laughs are on you:-)
Oh no .. they are most definitely on you. YET AGAIN
>> > MMX experiments with light in air produce a null result.
>> So what? I never said they didn't.
> Since sound speed behaves exactly like light speed,
Really .. constant in all inertial frames of reference is it? Independant
of the relative speed of the source and observer/listener is it? Is there a
Lorentz transform that allows a sound-base "mmx" type experiment to ensure
you get a null results?
> the results of
> the experiments with light predict the outcome of the experiments with
> sound. You didn't know this one either, did you?
You really are being a fool here
>> >> BTW: We can already determine the motion of the earth within a closed
>> >> lab, in that we can measure its rotation.
>> > Sure, but this is NOT what MMX is all about. Concemtrate, we are still
>> > talking MMX, right?
>> God only know what you are talking about .. just trying to score points
>> and
>> failing again by the looks of things
>
> I already drop kicked you twice in this post only.
In your dreams
> From 40 yards and from 50.
You missed me and landed on your arse .. again. As you've done every time
you've tried to score points against me. But I'm sure you'll keep trying
and keep looking like a fool
>> > Do you know how we measure the Earth rotation
>> Do you? You seemed to think that being able to do that would violate PoR
>> > (hint: it is NOT an MMX class experiment)
>> I didn't say it was.
> 1. So, if it isn't MMX , it is not relevant for your argument.
It was your argument, not mine .. and I already know your argument was not
relevant.
> 2. A non-null result for a sound based MMX would violate PoR (you
> already got the Nobel prize for this "discovery")
No .. it wouldn't.
> 3. A null result for sound based MMX (the correct outcome) is not
> usable for determining Earth motion wrt to the distant stars
Neither is the non-null results you get if you did an mmx-type experiment
using sound instead of light in a moving medium.
> 4. So, once again, do you know what class of experiment is being used
> in determining the Earth motion?
Yeup .. do you?
> You must be desperately googling
> things for the last day or so :-)
No desperation. The only one desperate is you to score points against me ..
so far your score is a big fat ZERO
Jeckyl
I didn't say it was a proof .. but that it is easy to show there is an
identiy and an inverse. Were you able to do that?
>> Still looking at transitivity .. got some real work to do now, so will
>> look
>> later.
> Yes, keep looking. Ever wondered why Shitbert didn't answer this
> one :-)
Maybe he doesn't know. Maybe it isn't transitive and he didn't want to admit
it. Maybe it is, and he wants you to try to prove otherwise and look like a
fool. As I've not yet determined if it transitive or not, I cannot comment
on his reasons.
Dono
Yes, there is a much more complete proof.
>
> >> Still looking at transitivity .. got some real work to do now, so will
> >> look
> >> later.
> > Yes, keep looking. Ever wondered why Shitbert didn't answer this
> > one :-)
>
> Maybe he doesn't know. Maybe it isn't transitive and he didn't want to admit
> it. Maybe it is, and he wants you to try to prove otherwise and look like a
> fool. As I've not yet determined if it transitive or not, I cannot comment
> on his reasons.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dono
> "Dono" <sa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1185801953.8...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 29, 10:13 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> > You continue to advertise your stupidity. Sound is not any different
> >> > from light.
> >> HAHAHAHA .. DODO quote of the month: "Sound is not any different to
> >> light"
> >> Talk about advertising stupidity .. how more stupid do you need to get?
> > Sound speed is only a function of the medium characteristics, exactly
> > like light. You mean, you didn't know that? The laughs are on you:-)
>
> Oh no .. they are most definitely on you. YET AGAIN
>
> >> > MMX experiments with light in air produce a null result.
> >> So what? I never said they didn't.
> > Since sound speed behaves exactly like light speed,
>
> Really .. constant in all inertial frames of reference is it? Independant
> of the relative speed of the source and observer/listener is it?
Yes, clown, the sound speed is not a function of the relative speed of
the source. What in the sentence "sound speed is only a function of
the properties of the propagating medium" didn't you understand?
> Lorentz transform that allows a sound-base "mmx" type experiment to ensure
> you get a null results?
>
If it didn't you would have a non-null experiment (as you claim) that
allows for the determination of "absolute motion", thus falsifying the
PoR. This is the type of stuff that you keep getting Nobels in the
email :-)
>
> > 2. A non-null result for a sound based MMX would violate PoR (you
> > already got the Nobel prize for this "discovery")
>
> No .. it wouldn't.
>
Of course it would, according to you you would have an experiment that
allows for detection of "absolute" motion, you moron. This is why
Svenska Akademiet keeps sending you Nobels in the email. Oops, you got
another one :-)
> > 3. A null result for sound based MMX (the correct outcome) is not
> > usable for determining Earth motion wrt to the distant stars
>
> Neither is the non-null results you get if you did an mmx-type experiment
> using sound instead of light in a moving medium.
>
Non-sequitur. Excellent logic, Jerkyl
> > 4. So, once again, do you know what class of experiment is being used
> > in determining the Earth motion?
>
> Yeup .. do you?
>
> > You must be desperately googling
> > things for the last day or so :-)
>
> No desperation. The only one desperate is you to score points against me ..
> so far your score is a big fat ZERO
So, you STILL don't know....After all the hints :-)
Juan R.
> "Dono" <sa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
>
> so far your score is a big fat ZERO
Hum, i believed that Dono (Karandash2) desesperation was my privilege.
He just replied to you and in some minutes he did go to give me 25 one-
stars in my recent "about time" message when fit in his radar.
Could you leave me Dono the Monday? You could use him the rest of the
week.
Dono
wrote:
Hello crank,
Do you want to participate in the discussion or do you simply want to
continue eating shit? So, wwhat do you think, will an MMX experiment
executed with sound instead of light produce :
A. a null result?
B. a non-null result?
So, shithead, which one it is, A or B?
Jeckyl
Anyway .. I can get
T_0(x,t) = (x,t)
T_[v+w] = T_w(T_v(x,t))
T_[-v](T_v(x,t)) = (x,y)
that should be enough to make T a group .. yes?
Dono
>
> - Show quoted text -
So speed adds up in the galilean way? v+w? Congratulations!
Juan R.
> Hello crank,
>
> Do you want to participate in the discussion or do you simply want to
> continue eating shit? So, wwhat do you think, will an MMX experiment
> executed with sound instead of light produce :
>
> A. a null result?
> B. a non-null result?
>
> So, shithead, which one it is, A or B?
Hum, you already called me "shithead" before, but then you were
Karandash2.
I imagined that someone trying to camoufle his identity again would be
more clever when posting.
You would learn physics by stages.
First you may learn dimensional analysis and some other basic stuff as
honesty.
Then move to Newtonian mechanics, thermo, etc. and after some years
you would be ready to play with MMXs.
But both (you and me) know that you are not still ready.
Dono
wrote:
> On Jul 30, 5:42 pm, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Hello crank,
>
> > Do you want to participate in the discussion or do you simply want to
> > continue eating shit? So, wwhat do you think, will an MMX experiment
> > executed with sound instead of light produce :
>
> > A. a null result?
> > B. a non-null result?
>
> > So, shithead, which one it is, A or B?
>
> Hum, you already called me "shithead" before, but then you were
> Karandash2.
>
Lots of people have called you a shithead and a shiteater. Because you
are one :-)
> I imagined that someone trying to camoufle his identity again would be
> more clever when posting.
>
> You would learn physics by stages.
>
> First you may learn dimensional analysis and some other basic stuff as
> honesty.
>
> Then move to Newtonian mechanics, thermo, etc. and after some years
> you would be ready to play with MMXs.
>
> But both (you and me) know that you are not still ready.
So, dumbshit
What is your answer: A or B?
Now watch you trying to waesel out of giving an answer.
Shubee
Try T_[(v+w)/(1+vw/c^2)] = T_w(T_v(x,t)). Only that will work. Or you
can wait until I update http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
Jeckyl
news:1185811169.3...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Sorry .. yes .. by the '+' above I was meaning the velocity composition.
Meant to type [v(+)w]
Jeckyl
> On Jul 30, 7:28 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "Dono" <sa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1185801953.8...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jul 29, 10:13 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >> > You continue to advertise your stupidity. Sound is not any different
>> >> > from light.
>> >> HAHAHAHA .. DODO quote of the month: "Sound is not any different to
>> >> light"
>> >> Talk about advertising stupidity .. how more stupid do you need to
>> >> get?
>> > Sound speed is only a function of the medium characteristics, exactly
>> > like light. You mean, you didn't know that? The laughs are on you:-)
>> Oh no .. they are most definitely on you. YET AGAIN
>> >> > MMX experiments with light in air produce a null result.
>> >> So what? I never said they didn't.
>> > Since sound speed behaves exactly like light speed,
>> Really .. constant in all inertial frames of reference is it?
>> Independant
>> of the relative speed of the source and observer/listener is it?
(typo above .. speeds, not speed, is more appropriate)
> Yes, clown, the sound speed is not a function of the relative speed of
> the source
HAHAHAHAHA ... You agree that the speed of sound is constant in all inertial
frames of reference. You've got to be joking
Don't you know that if the listener is moving wrt the air, then you get a
different speed for sound relative to the listener?
You've been drop kicked again.
> What in the sentence "sound speed is only a function of
> the properties of the propagating medium" didn't you understand?
Nothing at all. Unlike you. You think that the speed of sound is the same
regardless of the speed of the listener. Just like the speed of light is
the same regardless of the speed of the observer.
You've been drop kicked again.
>> Lorentz transform that allows a sound-base "mmx" type experiment to
>> ensure
>> you get a null results?
>
> If it didn't you would have a non-null experiment (as you claim) that
> allows for the determination of "absolute motion",
Yes .. motion in the air.
> thus falsifying the
> PoR. This is the type of stuff that you keep getting Nobels in the
> email :-)
HAHAHAHA - So you think there is a lorentz transform using the speed of
sound (instead of light)?
You've been drop kicked again.
>> > 2. A non-null result for a sound based MMX would violate PoR (you
>> > already got the Nobel prize for this "discovery")
>> No .. it wouldn't.
>
> Of course it would, according to you you would have an experiment that
> allows for detection of "absolute" motion, you moron.
Yes .. motion in the air.
> This is why
> Svenska Akademiet keeps sending you Nobels in the email. Oops, you got
> another one :-)
Nobel prize for proving you to be a fool .. to easy to get though
>> > 3. A null result for sound based MMX (the correct outcome) is not
>> > usable for determining Earth motion wrt to the distant stars
>> Neither is the non-null results you get if you did an mmx-type experiment
>> using sound instead of light in a moving medium.
> Non-sequitur. Excellent logic, Jerkyl
Thanks .. just shown your statement is irrelevant.
You've been drop kicked again.
>> > 4. So, once again, do you know what class of experiment is being used
>> > in determining the Earth motion?
>> Yeup .. do you?
>> > You must be desperately googling
>> > things for the last day or so :-)
>> No desperation. The only one desperate is you to score points against me
>> ..
>> so far your score is a big fat ZERO
> So, you STILL don't know....After all the hints :-)
Of course I do .. you don't though. You think there is no difference
between sound and light..
Dono
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ah, Stibert, what an honor
1. How do you know that in "Shitbertian physics" speeds add like in
SR?
2. In SR, the formula for speed addition is a CONSEQUENCE of the
transitivity of the Lorentz transforms, in "Shitbertian physics" you
pull it out of your butt. How did you come up with it?
3. The transforms from exercise 1 are not even the type A_phi, so you
cannot use their properties (Jerkyl missed that one as well).
4. So, Shitbert, if you are given only the transforms from exercise 1
how do you:
4.1. Derive the speed composition formula for Shitbertian physics
4.2. If you know the transform from fram S to S' (moving with relative
speed u) and the transform from S' to S" (moving with relative speed
v) how do you calculate the transform from S to S"? You cannot use the
properties of A_phi because your transform is not of the type A_phi
and you cannot use the SR speed composition.
Same questions for Jerkyl. Since the great scientist JuanR joined the
fray, you might ask him to help. Of course, he never calculates
anythinh but who knows .....
Juan R.
>
> > Hum, you already called me "shithead" before, but then you were
> > Karandash2.
>
> Lots of people have called you a shithead and a shiteater. Because you
> are one :-)
Yes, 355 people more or less or would say 1?
Also, if i am that one you think why do you ask me for an answer?
Cannot find by himself because is not in the textbooks, eh?
This remember me asking you (Karandash2) for the *general* lagrangian
and the *full* equation of motion, but since you could not find in
undergrad books you never replied me.
Physics is more hard you initially believed, eh?
> > I imagined that someone trying to camoufle his identity again would be
> > more clever when posting.
>
> > You would learn physics by stages.
>
> > First you may learn dimensional analysis and some other basic stuff as
> > honesty.
>
> > Then move to Newtonian mechanics, thermo, etc. and after some years
> > you would be ready to play with MMXs.
>
> > But both (you and me) know that you are not still ready.
>
> So, dumbshit
> What is your answer: A or B?
> Now watch you trying to waesel out of giving an answer.
What part of "You would learn physics by stages." you still fail to
understand.
Physics is not choosing A or B in a questionary. Explain you what is
the correct would need some knowledge of physics today you clearly
lack.
Dono
> "Shubee" <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nice to see you carnks working together:-)
You are supposed to use Shitbertian physics, now you replaced the
galilean addition with the SR addition, how do you know it applies to
Shitbertian physics, just because Shitbert bailed you out from the
shithole you dug yourself in?
Jeckyl
Sorry .. typo .. was meant to be [v(+)w] where (+) is a velocity composition
of (v+w)/(1+vw) (assuming c=1)
so working is
set c=1 (for simplicity)
gamma_v = 1/sqrt(1-v^2)
T_v(x,t)=(x',t') where
x'= x0 + gamma_v((x-x0)-v(t-t0)+vf(x))
t'= t0 + gamma_v((t-t0)-v(x-x0)-f(x)) + f(x')
T_[w](T_v(x,t)) = (x',t') where
x'= x0 + gamma_w(
[x0 + gamma_v((x-x0)-v(t-t0)+vf(x))-x0]
-w[t0 + gamma_v((t-t0)-v(x-x0)-f(x)) +
f(x0+gamma_v((x-x0)-v(t-t0)+vf(x)))-t0]
+wf(x0 + gamma_v((x-x0)-v(t-t0)+vf(x)))
)
t'= t0 +
gamma_w(
[t0 + gamma_v((t-t0)-v(x-x0)-f(x)) +
f(x0+gamma_v((x-x0)-v(t-t0)+vf(x)))-t0]
-w[x0 + gamma_v((x-x0)-v(t-t0)+vf(x))-x0]
-f(x0 + gamma_v((x-x0)-v(t-t0)+vf(x)))
)
+ f(x')
x'= x0 +
gamma_w(
gamma_v((x-x0)-v(t-t0)+vf(x))
-w.gamma_v((t-t0)-v(x-x0)-f(x))
-w.f(x0+gamma_v((x-x0)-v(t-t0)+vf(x)))
+w.f(x0+gamma_v((x-x0)-v(t-t0)+vf(x)))
)
t'= t0 +
gamma_w(
gamma_v((t-t0)-v(x-x0)-f(x))
+ f(x0+gamma_v((x-x0)-v(t-t0)+vf(x)))
-w.gamma_v((x-x0)-v(t-t0)+vf(x))
- f(x0+gamma_v((x-x0)-v(t-t0)+vf(x)))
)
+ f(x')
x'= x0 + gamma_w.gamma_v((x-x0) -v(t-t0) +vf(x) -w.(t-t0) +wv(x-x0) +wf(x))
t'= t0 + gamma_w.gamma_v((t-t0) -v(x-x0) -f(x) -w(x-x0) +wv(t-t0) -wvf(x)) +
f(x')
x'= x0 + gamma_w.gamma_v((1+vw)(x-x0) -(v+w)(t-t0) +(v+w)f(x))
t'= t0 + gamma_w.gamma_v((1+vw)(t-t0) -(v+w)(x-x0) -(1+vw)f(x)) + f(x')
x'= x0 + gamma_w.gamma_v.(1/(1+vw))((x-x0) -(v+w)/(1+vw)(t-t0)
+(v+w)/(1+vw)f(x))
t'= t0 + gamma_w.gamma_v.(1/(1+vw))((t-t0) -(v+w)/(1+vw)(x-x0) -f(x)) +
f(x')
let U = (v(+)w) = (v+w)/(1+vw)
x'= x0 + gamma_U((x-x0) -U(t-t0) +U.f(x))
t'= t0 + gamma_U((t-t0) -U(x-x0) -f(x)) + f(x')
so
T_[U](x,t) = T_[v(+)w](x,t) = T_w(T_v(x,y)) = (x',t')
I haven't rechecked my working there .. no time now .. but i think its ok.
Jeckyl
> You are supposed to use Shitbertian physics,
I did.
> now you replaced the
> galilean addition with the SR addition,
well .. call it the Shitbertian velocity composition .. v(+)w = (v+w)/(1+vw)
> how do you know it applies to
> Shitbertian physics,
Because it works .. its the relationship between v and w that you get from
T_w(T_v(x,t))
> just because Shitbert bailed you out from the
> shithole you dug yourself in?
No .. worked it from scratch.
Dono
> > So, dumbshit
> > What is your answer: A or B?
> > Now watch you trying to waesel out of giving an answer.
>
> What part of "You would learn physics by stages." you still fail to
> understand.
>
> Physics is not choosing A or B in a questionary. Explain you what is
> the correct would need some knowledge of physics today you clearly
> lack.-
So, you don't know, dumbshit. It is very easy question. A or B?
Jeckyl
From DODO who think s there is no difference between light and sound :):):)
Dono
But this comes from SR. To make matters worse, in SR this is a
CONSEQUENCE of composition transitivity.
> > how do you know it applies to
> > Shitbertian physics,
>
> Because it works ..
hahahahahaha
Jeckyl
Same in the excercise given .. it is a consequence. The combination of that
composition operator with the transform gives you a nice group.
>> > how do you know it applies to
>> > Shitbertian physics,
>> Because it works ..
> hahahahahaha
I'm glad your amused.. that's exactly why velocity composition is as it is
in SR .. because it works.
Dono
Clown, the sound speed is independent of the source. Let me put you
out of your misery:
Let the sond of speed be c_s. Since c_s is INDEPENDENT of the Earth
speed v, if you executed a MMX with sound, you would be getting:
a. For the "horizontal" arm t_h=L/c_s
b. For the "vertical" arm t_v=L/c_s
So, in the lab frame t_h-t_v=0, NULL result.
Now, if you keep this up, Svenska Akademiet may see your posts and
email you more Nobels for the falsification of the PoR.